The grand underlying myth

Part 2 of 4. Myths and Archetypes



“There is a mill which grinds by itself, swings of itself, and scatters the dust of a hundred versts away. And there is a golden pole with a golden cage on top which is also the Nail of the North. And there is a very wise tomcat which climbs up and down the pole. When he climbs down he sings songs; and when he climbs up, he tells tales.”

Tale of the Ostyaks of the Irtysh. ( Santilla and Deschend, 2015 P96)

Myths hold a fascination for us all, as they take us on a fantastical journey outside of our everyday reality and provide us with an insight into elements of our existence that may be more accessible to us within a figurative manner. Archetypes, on the other hand appear to function on a more individual scale in immediate understanding but have influenced our culture in an equally impressive manner. 

The term ‘archetype’ has its origins in ancient Greek and is derived from the root word archein, which means ‘original or old; ’ and typos, which means ‘pattern, model or type’. The combined meaning is an ‘original pattern’ of which all other similar persons, objects, or concepts are derived or emulated. The Hellenistic philosopher, Philo elaborated on this interrelationship referring to what he viewed as a god image and stated, “The creator of the world did not fashion these things directly from himself, but copied them from archetypes outside himself.” (Tarnas 1996:107)

The psychologist, Carl Jung, used the concept of archetype in his theory of the human psyche. He believed that these archetypes were universal, mythic characters that reside within our collective unconscious. The archetypes were seen to represent fundamental human motifs of our experience as we have evolved, and consequently they tend to evoke deep emotions. 

He also believed that myths had a psychic element. He maintained that the psyche contains all the images that have ever given rise to myths and the drama of the human condition is played out in our unconscious and rediscovered by primitive man by means of analogy.  Maybe it is possible for myths to demonstrate patterns and events that have not only passed but also suggest the next chapter in our story? To gain a greater understanding into this possibility it would be necessary to understand how archetypes have developed in different cultures and at different times in history, in order to give added information to the part they may play in myth.

Before Jung attempted to explain the workings of the psyche and unconscious in terms of archetypes, it was the Greek culture that was distinctive in its interpretation of the world in terms of an archetypal principle. Socrates and Plato believed that the cosmos was an ordered expression of primordial essences seen as immortal deities, divine archai or archetypes. The archetypal principles took on the mythical personifications such as Aphrodite, Prometheus and Zeus to possibly allow us to order what could be perceived as a threatening and chaotic universe. This concept of a primitive universe ruled by anthropomorphic deities eventually developed into a world dominated by the natural elements of water, air, earth and fire that could ordered through a Pythagorean form of mathematics, where the circles, triangles and squares relationship to the planets were seen as a source of philosophical wisdom. Although it was the ancient Babylonians who initiated the centuries of astronomical observations, it was the Greeks who interpreted their observations and mythological correspondences. Even though these ideas were suppressed by the Christian Church during the establishment of the Roman Empire, they were to be revived, with the emergence of philosophy and psychology.

Do these archetypes, brought alive through myths hold any importance for us today? Giorgio de Santillana and Hertha von Dechand in their thesis on the origins of human knowledge and its transmission through myth, ‘Hamlet’s Mill’, believe that all myths have a have one common origin, in a celestial cosmology. “The gods and their abodes are not just vague reflections of human conditions, but they are everything in the interpretation of celestial activity.” (Santilla G and Deschend H, 1969: 315)

In their thesis they investigate the origins of human knowledge in an archaic world, selecting Hamlet and his many counterparts in myths from other countries, as the owner of a mythical mill. They begin by identifying a familiar storyline in many tales from Northern Europe, that of a man who feigns stupidity but whose avenging power and superior intellect confound the evil doers. More importantly, his intellect brings light and strength to the helpless, who have lost their way and are made to recognise their misery. This pattern probably most commonly recognised in Shakespeare’s ‘Hamlet’, is predated by the Scandinavian legend of Amlethus, followed by the Icelandic tale of Amlodhi,  Kullervo from the Finnish epic, Kalevala and the Persian Shahnama, the national epic of Iran as well as countless other tales from Northern Europe and Rome. (The hero being Kai Khusrau whose prophetic dream of a great new age begins a long time of trials for the hero.) It is the myth of Hamlet though that shows itself to be a true universal myth.

Continued in the next article: ‘Can you hear the birdsong?’